The following is tabulation of some prior art that presently appears relevant:
U.S. PatentsPat. No.Kind CodeIssue DatePatentee2,960,254220/31Nov. 15, 1960Kiba3,184,013189/34May 18, 1965Pevlecka3,203,149 52/593Aug. 31, 1965Soddy3,249,284229/40May 3, 1966Wood4,050,604220/4 FSep. 27, 1977Flanders4,083,464217/13Apr. 11, 1978Burnett4,230,227206/600Oct. 28, 1980Kowall et al.4,470,647312/111Sep. 11, 1984Bishoff4,491,231220/6Jan. 1, 1985Heggeland et al.4,793,507217/13Dec. 27, 1988Delplanque5,016,813229/189May 21, 1991Simons5,123,533206/386Jun. 23, 1992Uitz5,429,259217/65Jun. 4, 1995Robin5,466,058312/111Nov. 14, 1995Chan5,555,989220/62Sep. 17, 1996Moran, Jr.5,632,071 24/573.7May 27, 1997Maunder5,743,421220/4.28Apr. 28, 1998Gonzalez et al.5,749,512229/199May 12, 1998Gingras-Taylor5,888,114446/128Mar. 30, 1999Slocum et al.5,979,693220/592.2Nov. 9, 1999Bane6,648,159220/4.28Nov. 18, 2003Prutkin et al.8,387,856229/123Mar. 5, 2013Lachance et al.8,584,858206/586Nov. 19, 2013Golias8,763,811206/584Jul. 1, 2014Lantz8,863,473 52/745.2Oct. 21, 2014Weber
U.S. Patent Application PublicationsPublication Nr.Kind CodePubl. DateApplicantUS20020092787 A1  206/459.5Jul. 18, 2002ChengUS20020193046A1446/476Dec. 19, 2002ZeberskyUS20030098256206/511May 29, 2003LuUS20040232145 A1 220/4.33Nov. 25, 2004Antal et al.US20050223652 A1  52/79.1Oct. 13, 2005Mower et al.US20120175377 A1220/621Jul. 12, 2012Masci
Foreign Patent DocumentsForeign Doc. Nr.Cntry CodeKind CodePub. DtApp or PatenteeEP0408622DEE04B1/611993 Feb. 17Thomas Sorensen05-170261GBB65D 71/121993 Jul. 9Marie Philippe05-201449JPB65D 6/281993 Aug. 10Ozaki Seiji06-064639GBB65D 5/421994 Mar. 8Milliens Andre11-222937JPE04B 1/3431999 Aug. 17Kiyono Fumio2002-065422JPA47F 5/102002 Mar. 5Hirano FumiisaCN03225707.4CNB65D6/242004 Aug. 4Yizhong ChenCN200820201784.4CNB65D6/242009 Aug. 26Kaizhi Hong2010-088624JPA47B 47/002010 Apr. 22O KeishoCN201664394UCNA61G17/002010 Dec. 8Yonghai Fei2142420EPB62D 29/042011 Sep. 7Walter Boersma2013-056686JPB65D 6/242013 Mar. 28Fujimoto Futoshi2015-067345JPB65D 81/382015 Apr. 13Kawakami et al.AU20150903545AUE04B1/612015 Aug. 31Parsons et al.CN201520114229.8CNB65D6/242015 Sep. 16Ke Yi2016-132492JPB65D 6/182016 Jul. 25Shimamoto Satoshi1020167021115KRF16B 12/1252016 Sep. 13Dereloev et al.
Cardboard boxes have been prevalent in the packaging industry since its patent in 1856 and rose to prominence as a shipping material in the 1870s. Corrugated cardboard boxes are light weight compared to Wooden boxes, thus being more convenient to handle and print for packaging and protecting commodities.
For packaging heavy items or stacking heavy items, corrugated cardboard boxes may not be suitable and can become deformed due to their inadequate endurance to mechanical stresses. Cardboard has a number of drawbacks, including costs, strength in humid conditions, and increasing numbers that cause environmental degradation.
Even though it is indispensable to our daily lives, the cardboard box goes largely unappreciated. Cardboard is used to ship over 90 percent of all products in the US. More than 100 billion cardboard boxes are produced in the United States alone every year, weighing approximately 40 million tons. The fastest-growing contributors to the pile of cardboard are e-commerce companies and the number is only expected to grow as online shopping continues to surge.
Cardboard is the single largest component of municipal solid waste around the world. It is estimated that over 24 million tons of cardboard is discarded each year. When paper decomposes, it emits methane gas which is dozens more toxic than CO2.
Each ton of cardboard paper produced consumes 17 trees, 380 gallons of oil, 7000 gallons of water, 4,000 kWh of energy, and 9 cubic yards of landfill space.
There is a limited resource of trees in the world and we need every last one of them to preserve suitable oxygen levels, reduce carbon dioxide, and help maintain the rain formation cycle in the world. Trees produce oxygen and protect the planet from further global warming. The 17 trees that would be saved could absorb a total of 250 pounds of carbon dioxide from the air each year while producing enough oxygen for 51 people.
Combining all the energy consumed, more than one ton of CO2 emissions could be reduced for every ton of cardboard that we do not produce. There is no doubt that deforestation and desertification are contributing to the deterioration of the environment, climate, and the habitat of this planet. We are facing crucial challenges to mitigate these adverse processes for future generations and become more eco-friendly. Every step in the manufacturing process of cardboard also produces tons of hazardous gasses that are emitted into the air every day. Pulp and paper is one of the largest industrial polluters to air, water, and land worldwide.
While recycling cardboard boxes can help, it still requires half the time and energy it takes to make a brand new box, which makes recycling cardboard in bulk a time-consuming and inefficient solution to a more severe problem. Avoiding the production of cardboard in the first place is more effective than recycling it.
The growing focus and pressing challenge towards sustainability by businesses and consumers are not only the environmental benefits but also the cost advantages. Cardboard boxes will last for a limited time depending on the weight and shapes of the items, adverse weather, faulty transportation, etc. One solution to tackle this environmental issue is to utilize reusable packaging products. Reusable packaging containers are made from stronger materials, allowing them to last 20 years and replace over 100 cardboard boxes in their lifetime. Durable and cost-efficient reusable packaging products can reduce storage and shipping costs for companies in almost any industry.
Paper generates 50 times more water pollutants and 70 percent more air pollutants during production than plastics. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions and energy, plastic is preferable to paper and cardboard—it takes 90 percent less energy to recycle a pound of plastic than a pound of paper. There are many advantages to using plastics over paper when it comes to transporting goods. Plastics could be used to make the panels under my panel interlocking mechanism.
As alternative to cardboard boxes, reusable boxes are easily cleaned, collapsible, and reusable. It is an economically feasible tool that has been used for many years. Due to complex channels in the market, returning reusable boxes to the supplier is getting more complicated. They are not interchangeable, particularly when the boxes are made to specific dimensions or standards.
For those collapsible alternatives to cardboard boxes, the sizes cannot be adjusted to Different specifications. In addition, courier services and delivery companies price the shipping costs based on guidelines of dimensional packaging from the higher of the two measurements: package weight or package size. Storing numerous boxes for many businesses and individuals is not realistic due to the area the boxes occupy.
For businesses that are using routine transportation routes to deliver products, Cardboard boxes that are only used once or twice result in major expenses for business operations. Reusable boxes can cut down enormous costs for this type of business.
Consumers who receive their shipments from e-commerce companies usually discard the cardboard boxes. The boxes come in a variety of sizes, possibly containing protective materials for the product. Although consumers may keep some boxes at home, shipping items becomes problematic when the items do not match the sizes of the cardboard boxes.
My panel interlocking mechanism allows modular panels to be produced in standard sizes, assembled to standard-size boxes, and disassembled for easy storage. Since all the panels are in modular specifications and standard sizes, the panels can be circulated, stored, cleaned, recycled, and reused. For all businesses and individual consumers, the most important benefit in adopting the modular interlocking panel boxes is to significantly reduce packaging costs due to the reusable features.
One reason cardboard boxes are popular is because people like clean and disposable boxes. My mechanism designs smooth and sleek surfaces all over the panels. After each usage, if they get dirty, individual consumers can easily rinse and dry them. For industries under specific regulations, my design is suitable for centralized washing and drying.
My mechanism presents the simplest designs using modular panels to build and expand surfaces. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 8,863,473 (2014), U.S. Pat. No. 5,979,693 (1999), U.S. Pat. No. 5,743,421 (1998), U.S. Pat. No. 5,429,259 (1995), U.S. Pat. No. 4,470,647 (1984), U.S. Pat. No. 4,050,604 (1977) all introduced panel interconnection methods; some designs are limited to creating a single sized box; some mechanism require thick panels to make it interlock; some designs need panels in a variety of sizes; while others require additional accessories to hold the box together. All the methods and panels mentioned above have limitations for wide usage and circulation in the society.
The following U.S. Pat. No. 5,888,114 (1999), U.S. Pat. No. 5,466,058 (1995), U.S. Pat. No. 5,123,533 (1992), U.S. Pat. No. 3,203,149 (1965), U.S. Pat. No. 3,184,013 (1965) are becoming more complicated. The tedious work required for the assembling these boxes deters consumers' interest in the packaging. The configurations of panels are so uneven or irregular that they're not fit for easy cleaning.
Another major mechanism for reusable boxes is collapsible boxes. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,648,159 (2003), U.S. Pat. No. 5,555,989 (1996), U.S. Pat. No. 4,793,507 (1988), U.S. Pat. No. 4,491,231 (1985), U.S. Pat. No. 3,249,284 (1966) are all devices that require all major pieces to connect before folding up. The configurations are predetermined before connecting the pieces into an enclosure, therefore limiting the applications to unitary product transportations. Their blueprints are not as simple and compact as my designs, and the interchangeability in reusing boxes mentioned above is obviously restricted.
None of the methods or devices mentioned above could help consumers use simple modular panels with my mechanism to assemble and dissemble reusable boxes in various sizes and dimensions. Additionally, none of the existing methods is suitable for mass production under industrial standards, accepted to circulate and reuse as an alternative to cardboard boxes in society, or mitigate environmental concerns.
Based on the previous shortcomings of assembling and dissembling enclosures or boxes from panels, components, and collapsible devices, my mechanism discloses a far more efficient and practical way for alternatives. This type of panel in my design is versatile for building boxes in a plurality of sizes and dimensions, allowing the consumer to use panels in the minimal number of dimensions to meet their specifications. Furthermore, my mechanism can extend to other applications such as furniture and assembly toys, partitions, makeshift houses, etc.